Constitutional right to privacy

[Diuretic]

the constitution itself is an invasion of our natural pirvacy and our leaders are sworn to uphold it. My privacy is only that which i am able to protect myself.

so that seems to reinforce the idea that there is no constitutional right to privacy because the constitution didn't and doesn't create privacy, but assumes its existence perhaps on a natural law basis and thus and can only negatively affect it. I think.

close enough for government work.

 

[Diuretic]

I guess I fall in the strict constructionism crowd. I believe that our rights naturally exist and that the Constitution limits Government in terms of how its laws affect our rights that already exist. In other words, the Constitution does NOT have to say that we have a right to bear arms (and it does NOT say that) because that right already exists. Instead, the Constitution tells Government that it may NOT pass any law that infringes upon the right to bear arms. The burden of proof always lies on Government not the individual.

This is why I am more concerned today about how the Obama administration is interpreting certain aspects of the Constitution. I also had similar concerns with the Bush administration, so I'm not being partisan. In fact, the way I see the political parties of today is left and not-so-left. The political right doesn't exist anymore.

I think if you cite the 2nd Amendment as an example it's going to get a bit messy. One of the reasons is that the right to bear arms was in the English constitution (it was in a old statute that required certain subjects to own arms and also in the 1689 Bill of Rights) and therefore was in existence in the American colonies when the British were in charge. So in that sense a positive law right (as opposed to a natural law right) was in operation and was probably recognised in the 2nd Amendment. Having said that I'm of course open to correction.

 

[DamnYankee]

Does it exist or not? I contend that it does for the following reasons-

You can search the constitution over for the word privacy, but you will not find it. You will also not find the word marriage. Does this mean that you don't have the right to get married? How about buy foreign goods or read a book? Those aren't specifically mentioned either. Neither is having children. The reason for these are not mentioned is due to a common misconception about the purpose of the constitution. The Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do. The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution.

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The right to privacy is clearly in these two amendments. The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution. That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to listen to our phone calls; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution. This includes checking out your jumblies with X-ray specs at the fucking airport.

I believe you're wrong insofar as your justification. Why? Because the sole purpose of The Constitution is the limitation/restriction of the powers of state. It is The Bill of Rights where the founders addressed our "inalienable" or "God given" rights. The Constitution protects our right to privacy from being diminished or trampled on by discretionary “majority rule.”

 

[Diuretic]

Does it exist or not? I contend that it does for the following reasons-

You can search the constitution over for the word privacy, but you will not find it. You will also not find the word marriage. Does this mean that you don't have the right to get married? How about buy foreign goods or read a book? Those aren't specifically mentioned either. Neither is having children. The reason for these are not mentioned is due to a common misconception about the purpose of the constitution. The Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do. The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution.

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The right to privacy is clearly in these two amendments. The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution. That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to listen to our phone calls; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution. This includes checking out your jumblies with X-ray specs at the fucking airport.

I believe you're wrong insofar as your justification. Why? Because the sole purpose of The Constitution is the limitation/restriction of the powers of state. It is The Bill of Rights where the founders addressed our "inalienable" or "God given" rights. The Constitution protects our right to privacy from being diminished or trampled on by discretionary “majority rule.”

Even I, as a non-American, know that the Bill of Rights is the term used to describe a number of clauses in the US Constitution itself. But that aside, the question is, is there a constitutional right to privacy? Is it mentioned anywhere in the Constitution (including the first ten amendments)?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Does it exist or not? I contend that it does for the following reasons-

You can search the constitution over for the word privacy, but you will not find it. You will also not find the word marriage. Does this mean that you don't have the right to get married? How about buy foreign goods or read a book? Those aren't specifically mentioned either. Neither is having children. The reason for these are not mentioned is due to a common misconception about the purpose of the constitution. The Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do. The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution.

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The right to privacy is clearly in these two amendments. The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution. That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to listen to our phone calls; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution. This includes checking out your jumblies with X-ray specs at the fucking airport.

I believe you're wrong insofar as your justification. Why? Because the sole purpose of The Constitution is the limitation/restriction of the powers of state. It is The Bill of Rights where the founders addressed our "inalienable" or "God given" rights. The Constitution protects our right to privacy from being diminished or trampled on by discretionary “majority rule.”

The Constitution says "Unreasonable" Our right to privacy is not complete. A sane man can easily see that the search functions to board aircraft are REASONABLE precautions and so fall with in the power of the Government. The newest forms are also quite reasonable as well, in fact they do not violate ones privacy at all unless one happens to have an illegal substance or weapon on them. The scan operator never sees the person he is scanning and he never sees their face. If he comes out of his room to the terminal he has no way at all to know who was and was not scanned by him.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Does it exist or not? I contend that it does for the following reasons-

I believe you're wrong insofar as your justification. Why? Because the sole purpose of The Constitution is the limitation/restriction of the powers of state. It is The Bill of Rights where the founders addressed our "inalienable" or "God given" rights. The Constitution protects our right to privacy from being diminished or trampled on by discretionary “majority rule.”

Even I, as a non-American, know that the Bill of Rights is the term used to describe a number of clauses in the US Constitution itself. But that aside, the question is, is there a constitutional right to privacy? Is it mentioned anywhere in the Constitution (including the first ten amendments)?

No it is not. The 4th Amendment is the sole place it comes up. And that states one is protected from unreasonable search and seizure of property and implies self as well.

 

[Diuretic]

I believe you're wrong insofar as your justification. Why? Because the sole purpose of The Constitution is the limitation/restriction of the powers of state. It is The Bill of Rights where the founders addressed our "inalienable" or "God given" rights. The Constitution protects our right to privacy from being diminished or trampled on by discretionary “majority rule.”

Even I, as a non-American, know that the Bill of Rights is the term used to describe a number of clauses in the US Constitution itself. But that aside, the question is, is there a constitutional right to privacy? Is it mentioned anywhere in the Constitution (including the first ten amendments)?

No it is not. The 4th Amendment is the sole place it comes up. And that states one is protected from unreasonable search and seizure of property and implies self as well.

I might not be entirely correct but what the hell. When I read the 4th Amendment I'm always put in mind of Entick v Carrington and Pitt the Elder's great statement, "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter."

That for me is a statement of the law as it was at the time of the colonies.

Again it seems to be a statement of natural law rather than positive law.

 

[Toome]

I guess I fall in the strict constructionism crowd. I believe that our rights naturally exist and that the Constitution limits Government in terms of how its laws affect our rights that already exist. In other words, the Constitution does NOT have to say that we have a right to bear arms (and it does NOT say that) because that right already exists. Instead, the Constitution tells Government that it may NOT pass any law that infringes upon the right to bear arms. The burden of proof always lies on Government not the individual.

This is why I am more concerned today about how the Obama administration is interpreting certain aspects of the Constitution. I also had similar concerns with the Bush administration, so I'm not being partisan. In fact, the way I see the political parties of today is left and not-so-left. The political right doesn't exist anymore.

I think if you cite the 2nd Amendment as an example it's going to get a bit messy. One of the reasons is that the right to bear arms was in the English constitution (it was in a old statute that required certain subjects to own arms and also in the 1689 Bill of Rights) and therefore was in existence in the American colonies when the British were in charge. So in that sense a positive law right (as opposed to a natural law right) was in operation and was probably recognised in the 2nd Amendment. Having said that I'm of course open to correction.

LOL. Well, yes, that is the heart of the debate between true Americans and socialists who would disarm us. (OK, tongue in cheek! tongue in cheek! Couldn't resist the temptation.)

What I find disheartening is that in recent years, we've allowed Government to grow in power (yes, including the recent Bush administration). I'm a firm believer that every law passed represents a portion of our rights surrendered to Government. In some cases, it's a reasonable compromise (e.g. regulating speed limits on the public highway: makes sense to impose certain safety precautions). In other cases, like it or not, we DO have a right to be stupid. And in situations when our stupidity only harms ourselves, I don't think Government should intervene. For example, seat belt laws: I think it only gives police officers a weak pretense to stop drivers and conduct searches under the guise of protecting themselves from hidden weapons. And just to make a couple points clear: yes, I'm a big supporter of law enforcement. And yes, I believe it's moronic to drive without wearing a seat belt. However, that's a choice I make. On the flip side, you and I have a right to also be stupid and NOT wear seat belts---and deal with the consequences of such decisions.

 

[dilloduck]

Even I, as a non-American, know that the Bill of Rights is the term used to describe a number of clauses in the US Constitution itself. But that aside, the question is, is there a constitutional right to privacy? Is it mentioned anywhere in the Constitution (including the first ten amendments)?

No it is not. The 4th Amendment is the sole place it comes up. And that states one is protected from unreasonable search and seizure of property and implies self as well.

I might not be entirely correct but what the hell. When I read the 4th Amendment I'm always put in mind of Entick v Carrington and Pitt the Elder's great statement, "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter."

That for me is a statement of the law as it was at the time of the colonies.

Again it seems to be a statement of natural law rather than positive law.

agreed--I think our forefathers knew full well that any government was an infringement on privacy therefore did their best to regulate and minimize it's powers. Yielding to the Constitution IS sacrificing liberty for security.

 

[DamnYankee]

Does it exist or not? I contend that it does for the following reasons-

I believe you're wrong insofar as your justification. Why? Because the sole purpose of The Constitution is the limitation/restriction of the powers of state. It is The Bill of Rights where the founders addressed our "inalienable" or "God given" rights. The Constitution protects our right to privacy from being diminished or trampled on by discretionary “majority rule.”

Even I, as a non-American, know that the Bill of Rights is the term used to describe a number of clauses in the US Constitution itself. But that aside, the question is, is there a constitutional right to privacy? Is it mentioned anywhere in the Constitution (including the first ten amendments)?

No.

Senator Clinton proposed making it so back in 2006.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) gave a lengthy, nuanced speech on U.S. privacy rights to the American Constitution Society on June 16, 2006, a respected progressive organization.

Senator Clinton's speech was significant, as it was the first major policy speech by a Democratic leader to propose a Privacy Bill of Rights and federal privacy czar. These will be major issues in the 2008 presidential race, and may be a vital part of the Democratic Platform.

Senator Hillary Clinton Proposes a Privacy Bill of Rights & a Privacy Czar


The distinction in terms had a purpose for the framers. Those first 10 amendments [The Bill of Rights], written by the framers, addressed the people, while the Constitution proper addressed the state.

 

[Diuretic]

I guess I fall in the strict constructionism crowd. I believe that our rights naturally exist and that the Constitution limits Government in terms of how its laws affect our rights that already exist. In other words, the Constitution does NOT have to say that we have a right to bear arms (and it does NOT say that) because that right already exists. Instead, the Constitution tells Government that it may NOT pass any law that infringes upon the right to bear arms. The burden of proof always lies on Government not the individual.

This is why I am more concerned today about how the Obama administration is interpreting certain aspects of the Constitution. I also had similar concerns with the Bush administration, so I'm not being partisan. In fact, the way I see the political parties of today is left and not-so-left. The political right doesn't exist anymore.

I think if you cite the 2nd Amendment as an example it's going to get a bit messy. One of the reasons is that the right to bear arms was in the English constitution (it was in a old statute that required certain subjects to own arms and also in the 1689 Bill of Rights) and therefore was in existence in the American colonies when the British were in charge. So in that sense a positive law right (as opposed to a natural law right) was in operation and was probably recognised in the 2nd Amendment. Having said that I'm of course open to correction.

LOL. Well, yes, that is the heart of the debate between true Americans and socialists who would disarm us. (OK, tongue in cheek! tongue in cheek! Couldn't resist the temptation.)

What I find disheartening is that in recent years, we've allowed Government to grow in power (yes, including the recent Bush administration). I'm a firm believer that every law passed represents a portion of our rights surrendered to Government. In some cases, it's a reasonable compromise (e.g. regulating speed limits on the public highway: makes sense to impose certain safety precautions). In other cases, like it or not, we DO have a right to be stupid. And in situations when our stupidity only harms ourselves, I don't think Government should intervene. For example, seat belt laws: I think it only gives police officers a weak pretense to stop drivers and conduct searches under the guise of protecting themselves from hidden weapons. And just to make a couple points clear: yes, I'm a big supporter of law enforcement. And yes, I believe it's moronic to drive without wearing a seat belt. However, that's a choice I make. On the flip side, you and I have a right to also be stupid and NOT wear seat belts---and deal with the consequences of such decisions.

Using seat belts as an example (which I think is very useful) I think it exemplifies the reality of modern life as opposed to what might be seen as a golden age in the past. I'm very conscious that I'm about to enter a minefield but where a society bears the costs of medical treatment and rehabilitation (and not just direct costs, which makes it all the more complex) of an individual who is injured in a VA then I think society has the right to lay down the rules which would minimise harm (and therefore the immediate and continuing costs for treatment and rehabilitation) to an individual who wishes to drive a motor vehicle in that society. If you don't want to wear a seat belt then take public transport or walk.

 

[Ravi]

Actually, the bill of rights tells the government what it cannot do...and that is only a partial list.

 

[Diuretic]

No it is not. The 4th Amendment is the sole place it comes up. And that states one is protected from unreasonable search and seizure of property and implies self as well.

I might not be entirely correct but what the hell. When I read the 4th Amendment I'm always put in mind of Entick v Carrington and Pitt the Elder's great statement, "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter."

That for me is a statement of the law as it was at the time of the colonies.

Again it seems to be a statement of natural law rather than positive law.

agreed--I think our forefathers knew full well that any government was an infringement on privacy therefore did their best to regulate and minimize it's powers. Yielding to the Constitution IS sacrificing liberty for security.

I think the abuses of Star Chamber would have been in their minds. They bolstered the ideas of the Enlightenment against those of of the era of monarchical absolutism - and rightly so.

 

[dilloduck]

I might not be entirely correct but what the hell. When I read the 4th Amendment I'm always put in mind of Entick v Carrington and Pitt the Elder's great statement, "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter."

That for me is a statement of the law as it was at the time of the colonies.

Again it seems to be a statement of natural law rather than positive law.

agreed--I think our forefathers knew full well that any government was an infringement on privacy therefore did their best to regulate and minimize it's powers. Yielding to the Constitution IS sacrificing liberty for security.

I think the abuses of Star Chamber would have been in their minds. They bolstered the ideas of the Enlightenment against those of of the era of monarchical absolutism - and rightly so.

The Constitution may have inadvertantly given Americans the idea that the a government was even capable of providing individuals security and privacy.

 

[DamnYankee]

Does it exist or not? I contend that it does for the following reasons-

I believe you're wrong insofar as your justification. Why? Because the sole purpose of The Constitution is the limitation/restriction of the powers of state. It is The Bill of Rights where the founders addressed our "inalienable" or "God given" rights. The Constitution protects our right to privacy from being diminished or trampled on by discretionary “majority rule.”

The Constitution says "Unreasonable" Our right to privacy is not complete. A sane man can easily see that the search functions to board aircraft are REASONABLE precautions and so fall with in the power of the Government. The newest forms are also quite reasonable as well, in fact they do not violate ones privacy at all unless one happens to have an illegal substance or weapon on them. The scan operator never sees the person he is scanning and he never sees their face. If he comes out of his room to the terminal he has no way at all to know who was and was not scanned by him.

I see.... It's "reasonable" to expect that all shoes will be searched by virtue of the fact that there was one shoe-bomber, and it's "reasonable" to expect that the searchers will not glance at any of the persons whose carry-on bags they are searching for any liquid-holding containers by virtue of the fact there was one incident of a dangerous liquid substance. Got it...

BTW, interesting that your OP contains nearly verbatim portions to this:http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/

LOL!

 

[Diuretic]

It wasn't unique, although it's a fine document with sterling concepts. And that's not damning with faint praise. In essence the US created itself out of imperialist oppression and your Founders did a fine job of it. But the ideas in the Constitution weren't unique. Montesqieu was an inspiration (separation of powers) and of course the English and Scottish philosophers (some of whom I think had actually taught or at least influenced some of the Founders) were also a profound influence. But then so was the dictatorial imperialism of the Britain under the Hanoverians. I mean, at that time Britain was Nazi Germany without the concentration camps, it was a dreadful place in terms of civil liberies for ordinary people. The Founders were having none of that and although Britain was a negative example for the Founders an example it was, they took the best and rejected the bad and created a new nation with new, inspired by the Enlightenment ideals, and good for them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I believe you're wrong insofar as your justification. Why? Because the sole purpose of The Constitution is the limitation/restriction of the powers of state. It is The Bill of Rights where the founders addressed our "inalienable" or "God given" rights. The Constitution protects our right to privacy from being diminished or trampled on by discretionary “majority rule.”

The Constitution says "Unreasonable" Our right to privacy is not complete. A sane man can easily see that the search functions to board aircraft are REASONABLE precautions and so fall with in the power of the Government. The newest forms are also quite reasonable as well, in fact they do not violate ones privacy at all unless one happens to have an illegal substance or weapon on them. The scan operator never sees the person he is scanning and he never sees their face. If he comes out of his room to the terminal he has no way at all to know who was and was not scanned by him.

I see.... It's "reasonable" to expect that all shoes will be searched by virtue of the fact that there was one shoe-bomber, and it's "reasonable" to expect that the searchers will not glance at any of the persons whose carry-on bags they are searching for any liquid-holding containers by virtue of the fact there was one incident of a dangerous liquid substance. Got it...

BTW, interesting that your OP contains nearly verbatim portions to this:http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/

LOL!

Never been to that site and still haven't.

And yes it IS reasonable to search for BOMBS and WEAPONS in an age when numerous Governments and non Government entities are ACTIVELY seeking to blow up planes or Hijack them. It does not matter one whit how often a certain type has been used at all. The Government has a RESPONSIBILITY to protect the Public from such events. Further YOU agree to being searched EVERY SINGLE TIME you buy a plane ticket. Don't want to be searched? Don't fly.

 

[dilloduck]

It wasn't unique, although it's a fine document with sterling concepts. And that's not damning with faint praise. In essence the US created itself out of imperialist oppression and your Founders did a fine job of it. But the ideas in the Constitution weren't unique. Montesqieu was an inspiration (separation of powers) and of course the English and Scottish philosophers (some of whom I think had actually taught or at least influenced some of the Founders) were also a profound influence. But then so was the dictatorial imperialism of the Britain under the Hanoverians. I mean, at that time Britain was Nazi Germany without the concentration camps, it was a dreadful place in terms of civil liberies for ordinary people. The Founders were having none of that and although Britain was a negative example for the Founders an example it was, they took the best and rejected the bad and created a new nation with new, inspired by the Enlightenment ideals, and good for them.

History has taught us that words fall short when it comes to explaining concepts however the Constitution was damn good stab at it. Attempts to decipher what it's actually intent was haven't done much in the way of clarifying it. On the contrary---

 

[Diuretic]

I believe you're wrong insofar as your justification. Why? Because the sole purpose of The Constitution is the limitation/restriction of the powers of state. It is The Bill of Rights where the founders addressed our "inalienable" or "God given" rights. The Constitution protects our right to privacy from being diminished or trampled on by discretionary “majority rule.”

The Constitution says "Unreasonable" Our right to privacy is not complete. A sane man can easily see that the search functions to board aircraft are REASONABLE precautions and so fall with in the power of the Government. The newest forms are also quite reasonable as well, in fact they do not violate ones privacy at all unless one happens to have an illegal substance or weapon on them. The scan operator never sees the person he is scanning and he never sees their face. If he comes out of his room to the terminal he has no way at all to know who was and was not scanned by him.

I see.... It's "reasonable" to expect that all shoes will be searched by virtue of the fact that there was one shoe-bomber, and it's "reasonable" to expect that the searchers will not glance at any of the persons whose carry-on bags they are searching for any liquid-holding containers by virtue of the fact there was one incident of a dangerous liquid substance. Got it...

BTW, interesting that your OP contains nearly verbatim portions to this:http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/

LOL!

If a non-government body is offering a service and it has terms and conditions in the contract theny can choose to accept or reject those terms and conditions. You don't want to enter K-Mart and have your bag searched? Easy. Don't enter their private premises. You don't want to take your shoes off at the airport? Fine, get a Greyhound ticket.

 

[editec]

The right to privacy? Please don't make me laugh.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What the above basically says is that you have the right to privacy unless somebody in power decides they want to snoop into your life.

That's not a whole lotta protection, folks.

In fact, thanks to our supreme courts rulings of late, it's basically meaningless.